Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyRandomised controlled trial
When Direct Oral Anticoagulants Should Not Be Standard Treatment
- Narrative review of randomised controlled trials
- evidence-based review
Study context
- Population
- Conditions in which direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may not be standard treatment (mechanical heart valves, thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, AF with rheumatic heart disease, embolic stroke of undetermined source, LV thrombus, catheter-associated DVT, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, end-stage renal disease)
- Comparison
- DOACs vs standard of care
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Efficacy and safety of DOACs vs standard of care, by condition (review of RCTs)
- DOACs may be less efficacious or less safe than standard of care: mechanical heart valves, thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, AF with rheumatic heart disease
- No net benefit: embolic stroke of undetermined source
- Efficacy uncertain: LV thrombus, catheter-associated DVT, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, AF or venous thrombosis with end-stage renal disease
Original publication
When Direct Oral Anticoagulants Should Not Be Standard Treatment. J Am Coll Cardiol. Published 23 January 2024. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2023.10.038
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it